The diesel dilema... buy now or wait....

[lol-lol]

2 hours ago, AwaoffSki said:

ESTIMATED   / AVERAGE / REAL-WORLD / LOW MILEAGE.

 

They never were a good idea for 'low mileage',  and estimates are pretty rubbish when what you want is actual results from vehicles.

This 'Real World Emissions' is just another load of guff.

 

Always like to have a look at the HonestJohn and WhatCar Real and True MPGs, interesting reads.   https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/dacia/logan-mcv-2013/09-tce

What car   https://www.whatcar.com/truempg/mpg-calculator   Some result look odd and appeared to be skewed by very odd single result, perhaps someone is using the wrong type of car for their journeys and are stuck with it.

 

We pays are money and makes our choices and then the Government tweaks fuel excise duty, VED and increasingly city penalty charges for dirtier vehicles.  If I was commuting in to HMRC or PwC HQs office in the inner city, rather than going from sweet suburbia to usually out of town clients I would an EV in the fleet.  Have tried to get  ones my firm's make but they are only for hire in cities.  

 

HonestJohn............

56.5–57.7 - Official MPG

38.0–58.3 - Real MPG

48.3 - Real MPG Average

85%- of official MPG

 

WHATCAR... (Sandero as they did not have the Logan TCE)

Your true MPG44.3

Average True MPG: 52.8

Govt. claimed MPG: 55.4

Your CO2 (g/km)149.0

Average CO2: 126

Govt. claimed CO2: 109

Fuel cost per annum:£2832.33

Fuel cost per mile

14p/mile

 

Edited 10 March, 2018 by lol-lol

[Ootohere]

Time that tests results were available with vehicles used at Full Revenue Weight and not just a driver and equipment.

& Manufacturers have to publish their test results of the final production vehicles.

 

They can easily publish the Media Vehicles that the Journalists and Dealers are driving in which ever sunny clime at launch.

How many miles they got from each tank on the driving routes and on the test tracks.

 

They know these figures for fuel consumption, 

and they can publish the weight in the vehicles, they only need to drive over a weigh bridge.

 

These figures would give potential buyers a 'Real world comparison', to the 'Official Brochure / real world figures.'

 

Manufacturers should be proud to release these figures.

They can use Trackers to see the distances, speeds etc, and they know from the ECU's / On Board Information 

the type of driving, stop / start operating or not, Hybrid use or ICE engine etc.   Real World results.

Edited 10 March, 2018 by AwaoffSki

[lol-lol]

42 minutes ago, AwaoffSki said:

Time that tests results were available with vehicles used at Full Revenue Weight and not just a driver and equipment.

& Manufacturers have to publish their test results of the final production vehicles.

 

They can easily publish the Media Vehicles that the Journalists and Dealers are driving in which ever sunny clime at launch.

How many miles they got from each tank on the driving routes and on the test tracks.

 

They know these figures for fuel consumption, 

and they can publish the weight in the vehicles, they only need to drive over a weigh bridge.

 

These figures would give potential buyers a 'Real world comparison', to the 'Official Brochure / real world figures.'

 

Manufacturers should be proud to release these figures.

They can use Trackers to see the distances, speeds etc, and they know from the ECU's / On Board Information 

the type of driving, stop / start operating or not, Hybrid use or ICE engine etc.   Real World results.

 

Mind your journalist, and company car drivers with fuel cards can, not me as I have a social concious, drive with little consideration as they are either not paying at all or only paying a bit ie BIK.

 

The first test of the new 40 kWh leaf had some tragic range figures but then they drive it without much consideration and only got 108 miles from a car that should have done 15% more than that even in the depths of winter. Zoe did 23 miles more with the same tortuous driving style. A responsible owner can often get of the order of 20% better than a Journo.

Edited 10 March, 2018 by lol-lol

[SuperbTWM]

10 hours ago, lol-lol said:

If you want to pay Russian roulette with your future finances buy a TFSI and wait for it to explode

 

 

 

Corrected that for you 

[lol-lol]

Just now, SuperbTWM said:

 

Corrected that for you 

 

Only turbo failure i had was on a 1.9D wiesel.  Fabia 2 Vrs had 2 forced induction systems and never missed a beat in 100,000 miles. 7 speed Gearbox did some weird things sometimes. Best Skoda I had of the dozen was the 1.8 TSI L&K DSG.  Better than any of 4 VRSs i had.

[abaxas]

TBH when i ditched my 2.0tdi PD A3 at 140k it was just about run in.

If it wasn't for hitting two deer within a day of each other. I'd still be driving the car now

 

[lol-lol]

20 minutes ago, abaxas said:

TBH when i ditched my 2.0tdi PD A3 at 140k it was just about run in.

If it wasn't for hitting two deer within a day of each other. I'd still be driving the car now

 

 

I was somewhat surprised that my 1.9d 130 to octy would out accelerate the 140 hp Altea i had. Not impressed.  

The 1.8 TSI  would zip away from a diesel VRS. Fun.

 

Also had a 1.9d Audi a4 and it's combination of economy and large tank gave it a near 1000 mile range !

Great to be in. Not so good to smell its fumes probably!

 

Edited 10 March, 2018 by lol-lol